Conservative indecisiveness: A life identify crisis?
By Paul M. Weyrich
web posted March 21, 2005
I was quoted in the Washington Times as saying if there were a
contest between Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice I would
swallow hard and vote for Miss Rice because I consider Hillary
Clinton such a dangerous person.
I did say that but I do not expect to make the choice. That is
because Miss Rice made one of the more absurd statements
ever made by a potential candidate for the Presidency. (Miss
Rice said she has no plans to run for the Presidency but declined
to make a Sherman-like statement.) She said she was "mildly
pro-choice" on abortion. She went on to recite a litany of
positions, such as support of the Hyde Amendment (prohibition
of federal funds), opposition to partial-birth abortion and support
for parental notification, which would put her in the pro-life
corner.
With all due respect, either abortion is the killing of an unborn
child or it is not. If it is the killing of an unborn baby, how can a
rational person be mildly in favor of such a horrific act?
I said I did not expect to make the choice because the
Republican Party has produced pro-life nominees for President
since 1980. Even four years before that the Party adopted a
pro-life plank in its platform. Pro-lifers tend to vote in a higher
percentage in primary elections and also get themselves elected
as delegates to conventions in those states, which hold
conventions rather than primaries to choose delegates to the
national convention.
Ronald Reagan made the Republican Party the pro-life party.
Now all the leaders in both Houses of Congress are pro-life.
Most of the 29 GOP Governors are pro-life. It is a moral
imperative that at least one of the major parties be pro-life.
Putting aside the morality, pro-life candidates have a 5 to 7
percent advantage over pro-abortion candidates in general
elections. In some cases, depending on the state, the advantage
can be much higher.
In every election there is an effort to get the pro-life plank
eliminated from the GOP Platform. It has not worked mainly
because the presumptive nominee when the party platform is
being drafted always has signaled that he wants that plank
included.
And there is always a candidate who runs on the ground that
there is a groundswell to demand abortion. The latest to do so
was Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who ran in
2000. His was one of the briefest campaigns in the history of
Presidential politics. I well recall Specter holding up a chart,
which purported to show that 50 percent of Republican voters
wanted abortion on demand. Funny how his polling showed that
no other candidate's polling showed anything close to it. If there
were numerous Republicans who had a pro-abortion point of
view they didn't bother to help their champion, Senator Specter.
The Democrats have finally figured out that abortion is an
albatross around their political necks. So the new Democratic
Party Chairman, former Vermont Governor Howard P. Dean
said the party must make room for pro-lifers. That is a far cry
from 1992 when then Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey was
denied a speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention
because he was pro-life. Hillary Clinton said pro-lifers and pro-
abortion groups should look for common ground. She shocked
the abortion crowd by saying so, even though she in no way
changed her radical position on abortion. The Democratic Party
has tried to clear the deck for pro-life senatorial candidates in
both Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. They were successful
thanks to the strong arm of Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell.
However, Rhode Island has a Republican Governor and Rhode
Island party officials have not been strong enough to prevent a
pro-life/pro-abortion senatorial primary.
While no doubt a majority of GOP voters is pro-life, it could be
that pro-lifers could be divided among many candidates to the
point that a pro-abortion candidate or mildly pro-abortion
candidate could win a plurality of the vote in 2008. Since in most
states it is winner-take-all in both primaries and conventions, an
abortion sympathizer could win the GOP nomination for
President with a plurality.
The party bosses think that pro-lifers would end up voting for the
GOP candidate anyway. They are wrong about that. While those
of us who have been Republicans for decades might swallow
hard and vote for a nominee who is less than desirable, pro-lifers
vote for pro-life candidates, period. If faced with two pro-
abortion candidates most of them would stay home. The pro-
abortion organizations own the Democrat party. That is not likely
to change anytime soon. If the Republicans would be stupid
enough to nominate a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage candidate
such as Rudy Giuliani, the pro-life vote would surely go to a third
party and the election could well be handed to the Democrats.
Since the election there has been much hand wringing on the part
of Democrats about what went wrong. Democratic presidential
nominee Senator John Kerry (Mass.) has pointed out that with a
switch of 60,000 votes in Ohio he would be President. It is not
as if Democrats suffered a 49-state landslide as Ronald Reagan
inflicted on Walter Mondale. Democrats have enough Senators
to threaten to shut down the Senate if Republicans re-instate the
220-year tradition of requiring a simple majority vote to confirm
federal judges. In the House, a switch of 17 seats out of 435
seats would put the Democrats back in control. Democrats are
much stronger than they are made out to be.
Republicans must decide who they are. If they agree with
President Bush that the Party should contribute to a "culture of
life" then it will continue being the pro-life party with a pro-life
Presidential nominee. If not and they become like the Democrats
on the life issue, no doubt voters will choose the genuine article.
The best way to bring back the Democrats is for the Republicans
to abandon the life issue.
Paul M. Weyrich is the Chairman and CEO of the Free
Congress Foundation.
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com